[eadmund]

> Even though 49/50 Democrats in the Senate want to pass the bill you describe, since 1/50 opposes it (along with 50/50 Republicans)

Yes, when 51% of the votes are opposed to a course of action it is not followed. Are you advocating that for a submajority vote to suffice? That seems like it would have interesting consequences.

[mikeyouse]

Nah, just saying that when 98% of one party's higher chamber wants to make minimal progress toward doing the right thing, and 0% of the other one does -- it's pretty dumb in an /r/enlightenedcentrism kind of way to blame "our politicians" for failing to take action.

Given the responses in this thread - it makes sense why hapless "both sides" politicians like Andrew Yang were so popular on HN.

[eadmund]

> 98% of one party's higher chamber

The parties don't have chambers; the legislative branch does (and as noted, it is not 98% of the higher chamber which is stymied but rather 49%). Moreover, the U.S. is not a parliamentary democracy, but rather a representative democracy: the politicians represent not parties but districts and states. Whereas in parliamentary systems party discipline is the norm and free voting is the exception, in the U.S. system free voting is far more common, although of course there are still party whips. While in a parliamentary system a majority of the majority party may still control the country, in the U.S. system a shorter way of saying 'a majority of the majority' may often be 'a minority.'

> progress toward doing the right thing

That's begging the question, isn't it? In this case 51% of the chamber think a proposed course of action isn't the right thing, while 49% do. N.b.: I am not taking any position on the rectitude or not of the proposed course of action, just noting that it has not gained support of a simple majority of the chamber.